Google to let webmasters DISAVOW LINKS to combat negative SEO... Good idea?
 

What do you guys think about Matt Cutt's latest statements that Google will allow webmasters to disavow links so it doesn't count against them? http://searchengineland.com/live-blo...dvanced-123513

Wouldn't this result in a WIN WIN situation where spam SEO links are reported http://www.seroundtable.com/google-b...nks-15190.html and webmasters don't get penalized?

Wolf in sheep's clothing.

or merely crowdsourcing quality control....

Compelling webmaster to sign up for your "tools" to remain competitive is more than just crowd sourcing. Google's been dancing at the top of a slippery slope for a while now.

This google shit is getting out of control.

They don't know what to do with their fucked up algorithm.

Blame the spammers for ruining it for everyone

... I'll just sit here and wait for Smokethebear to again tell me that there are no negative penalties for inbound links and that you can't cause someones site to tank for its phrases with link spam.

i wish they would leave it the same

Ultra clusterfuck.

not good. that means they CAN turn on negative penalties for incoming links; coz they can say "well you should disavow them if they aren't yours".

So basically instead of it being their job to tell what links are real, what are purchased, which are attempts to throw you under the bus, now it becomes your job to manage it.

I am very far from an expert on this but it sounds on the face of it like a good thing to me, however I suppose there is a worry that you could be opening yourself up to problems on the links you specifically don't disavow?

you cannot penalize another site whatsoever... you can't even penalize your own site. Nothing is a penalty... it is all a mirage of smoke and mirrors to confuse you

WTF if back links from a low ranking site don't hurt you why the hell would you report it?
Why would you kill a back link at all?
I could post to a site now from a low PR ranking blog today and if I blow that blogs PR or traffic up then every one wins.

This almost makes no sense. At the same time Matt has been wrong a few times. I take about 40% of what he says to heart. The rest of it is him throwing darts at a board.

Honestly content is king. Want good rank create good content.

(Sorry I did not mean to go off)

Several ways to look at it. A site that is ranking for 15 good inbound links gets 1000 spam links... Penalized!

A site with 500 inbound links gets 1000 spam links... likely NOT penalized!

A site with 500 inbound links get fucking destroyed with 15000 totally shitty links... Penalized!

Content is key, but you can def. destroy a site with shitty inbound links. It is in their algo to try and prevent purchasing links but it has problems.

beaner: I thought that is why google started to give spam sites a 0, That way if you spend money getting spank back links, they wont hurt you but they wont help either. That way your competitor cant go and buy you a 1000 spam back links to take you out of the running.

I think I read too it was based of the rate of witch your links are built. If you get 1000 links over night then it all just drops off then you might get in trouble.

If you have a steady build and don't sky rocket over night and all the sites linking back to you are not on the same IP block or server and the content is relevant your good to go.

If there was a hard penalty for back links then you could use a back link bomb to destroy your competitor.

Unless this new tool is going to be used so they will give more weight to back links. This tool would allow you to undo what ever your competition may have done.

They may have started... but it is still happening.

1 thing I have noticed as recent as 2 weeks ago... if you change up the pattern of inlinks... meaning an influx of links... that will flag it if the site doesn't have a solid, steady flow of links in the past.

Well Google does change it's mind about every three months or so. It just takes a big company with pull or $$$ to bitch.

I will stand by the fact the panda fucking sucked ass

What is to stop someone from buying 10,000 links and pointing them at a competitors website?

I think Google Panda centered around low quality links meaning:

1: free hosted blogs

2: wordpress blog comments

possibly 3: forum profiles

xrumer style links


~Ray

Proof you know nothing about SEO and blackhat SEO. You're just making this up and anyone that knows anything about link building (particularly to low authority pages) knows that's not the case and hasn't been for quite a few years.

Just a way to get a list of which sites to make count negatively, either for human verification of their algorithm or developing a new one.

Right. Also, what's preventing people from making links at ugc sections of competitors and "disavowing" those so their competitor can tank? This is a bigger problem for mainstream sites...

And this is why more and more people are using Bing... I still use Google Search for now but I have begun using other services instead of the Google Suite.

and now they want site owners to step in and do their work for them :disgust

I would say it's a matter of footprints. Too many hiqh quality links will hurt you just as bad as too many low quality links.

Here's the hat worn by Google execs/strategists

http://i.imgur.com/Pq5wI.jpg

It's called "crowdsourcing"...

Seriously though, don't all successful sites basically work by getting people to do stuff for free. Where would flickr be without people upload pictures, where would facebook be without people generating content...

As long as the spam SEO links work for me I'm not going to worry about all this complicated shit. It's just like with everything else... if you lose your good rankings just start a piracy site and Google will toprank it :1orglaugh